Free will deniers

[Koldo]

It's not about figuring anything out. It about accepting the reality of our situation.
However since you're not putting forward a counter argument I'll assume at this point you have none.

I don't really think there has ever been an argumentation going on between us on this topic, has it?

I see it as exposing views (not in the pejorative sense) rather than argumentation. If you want to elaborate your view in the form of argument, we can proceed through that route too.

 

[Estro Felino]

Then I am afraid I can't help you.
Philosophy can't be properly discussed in very very simple terms. There is going to be some degree of complexity and lots of nuance involved, no matter how I slice it for you.

May I know your titles?
Your education?
Thank you in advance.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't really think there has ever been an argumentation going on between us on this topic, has it?

I see it as exposing views (not in the pejorative sense) rather than argumentation. If you want to elaborate your view in the form of argument, we can proceed through that route too.

Here is your statement: Now I am going to take a side, and make a contentious claim: It doesn't make sense to think that you could have made a different choice if everything was the same, because that would entail even what motivates your choice being the same.

The problem here, which you apparently don't see is that you've tied your own hand behind you back.
My argument is that if you assume you can't alter your motivations then you are stuck with the view of determinism.
Begging the question of determinism because your statement assumes the the conclusion of your view.

To which you said: You will always have some kind of "ultimate" motivation at any given moment that will reign supreme. Which is exactly why it is possible to say "why" you have chosen to do something in particular rather than something else.

Ultimately asking: If our will decides our choices and our will is forged by our past...
Again assuming facts which support your conclusion.

And, I pointed out how this is not the case in post #169 which you never addressed.
If you are not going to address the problems I brought up about your statement, I'll assume you don't have a counter argument.

So I suppose you are right there hasn't been a argument. Just assumptions you've made which you haven't supported.

Now if you want to support any of these statements, that's fine. If not, that's fine too.

 

[Koldo]

May I know your titles?
Your education?
Thank you in advance.

Sure, if you explain the relevancy of this request.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sure, if you explain the relevancy of this request.

You pointed out that one cannot discuss philosophy unless they use "complexity and nuance", so I would like to understand your skills and your education.
And by the way, philosophy is not sophism.
Philosophy is the use of logic. Not of complex and nuanced words.

 

[Nakosis]

The capacity for a conscious agent to choose from two or more alternative actions or beliefs without any external or deterministic constraints (including their own biology and upbringing) beyond their control that would affect their decision.

This is a very basic definition, however: there are a lot of other details in the concept of free will that make me see it as incoherent.



"Deny" is a loaded word to use here because it seems to imply rejection of an established or evidenced phenomenon. I don't "deny" free will any more than I deny the existence of dragons and fairies, since I don't believe it is a coherent concept to begin with.

The reason I liked this is you point out a fundamental problem.
They've created an incoherent definition for free will and folks say it's incoherent.

Yes your definition is incoherent, I agree. No why bother arguing against a definition that is incoherent.
You want agreement that this definition is incoherent? Yes, I agree. That is why I don't use this definition.
It creates an statement which only allows the following conclusion, what it defines is incoherent.

 

[Koldo]

You pointed out that one cannot discuss philosophy unless they use "complexity and nuance", so I would like to understand your skills and your education.

I have no formal education on philosophy if that's what you want to know, except for some classes back at the university.

And by the way, philosophy is not sophism.
Philosophy is the use of logic.

Logic itself is already fairly complex. Have you learned symbolic logic, for example?

Not of complex and nuanced words.

You have never read any philosophy book, have you?
The hardest part about reading any philosophy book (or article) is generally properly understanding the terminology employed by the author (and the surrounding context of their work), because what happens very often is the usage of words in ways that are completely out of ordinary.

A very trivial example: what does it means to say that a given state of affairs obtains?
It is the kind of thing that makes absolutely no sense in ordinary conversations, because states of affairs can't obtain... and obtain what? It looks like the sentence is missing some words, and yet.... It is a complete sentence, full of meaning, in philosophy because the word 'obtain' has a specific meaning completely distinct from the way it is used in ordinary conversations.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have no formal education on philosophy if that's what you want to know, except for some classes back at the university.



Logic itself is already fairly complex. Have you learned symbolic logic, for example?




You have never read any philosophy book, have you?
The hardest part about reading any philosophy book (or article) is generally properly understanding the terminology employed by the author (and the surrounding context of their work), because what happens very often is the usage of words in ways that are completely out of ordinary.

A very trivial example: what does it means to say that a given state of affairs obtains?
It is the kind of thing that makes absolutely no sense in ordinary conversations, because states of affairs can't obtain... and obtain what? It looks like the sentence is missing some words, and yet.... It is a complete sentence, full of meaning, in philosophy because the word 'obtain' has a specific meaning completely distinct from the way it is used in ordinary conversations.

I have demonstrated that free will exists. You haven't.
Because I decide to have sex. It's my will because it's mine and only mine. And it's free because nobody forces me to have sex.

You haven't disproved my claim. Yet. I am still waiting for you to disprove my claim about sex and free will.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is a huge philosophical debate concerning the existence of free will, where great minds have, over centuries, made contributions. You are entirely free to come up with arguments to defend a position in any of the sides on this debate, and I commend anyone and everyone for thinking through on this topic. I respect both positions.

However, even after being explained why you are misusing the central term on this debate, you refuse to rectify your usage. You feel entitled to an ignorant opinion that is not grounded on the work of any philosopher.

I do not care what some philosophers 'believe' about free will.
My belief about free will is grounded on logic and what my religion teaches, which is grounded on God's Word.

Question.—Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?​

​

Answer.—This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.​

​

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.​

​

Some Answered Questions, p. 248​

You can read the whole chapter on free will on this link; 70: FREE WILL

In other words, this post of yours comes down to basically picking up philosophy as a topic of debate and... taking a **** on it, and worse yet, being proud of it. You will have more time to talk to your cats from now on, because I will no longer further entertain you since you have achieved a very special place: my ignore list. Have a good day.

You just cannot tolerate being wrong, that is obvious. But you are wrong, because any person of any intelligence knows that humans have free will to choose between right and wrong, and that is why the entire justice system is based upon this premise.

“Everyone wants to hold criminals responsible for their actions. This “responsibility” has its foundation in the belief that we all have the free will to choose right from wrong. What if free will is just an illusion, how would that impact the criminal justice system? Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely. Its no secret that I’m a firm believer in free will, but I’m also a firm believer in arguing against it when it helps my clients. That’s what we lawyers do (call me a hypocrite if you like, I can take it). Now, let’s delve into the issues and practical effects of eliminating free will.​

​

We only punish those who are morally responsible for their action. If a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian–there will be no criminal charges in the death of the pedestrian. This is what we call an “accident”. However, if a husband runs over his wife after an argument, that same pedestrian death now constitutes murder. It was the driver’s “intent” that made one pedestrian death a crime, and the other not. But, what if we examine the husband’s brain, and an MRI discovers a frontal lobe defect that could explain his deviant behavior? Is he still guilty of murder? If such a defect “caused” the husband’s actions, our criminal justice system has laws in place that would label the husband “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity”......​

​

As you can see from the appellate opinion above, our criminal laws are founded on the notion that if a person is not acting by his free will, the law cannot hold him “accountable for his choices”. There are plenty of other examples of Florida criminal laws that would benefit my clients, should everyone agree that free will is an illusion. For example, confessions cannot not be entered into evidence unless they are made of the defendant’s “own free will”. The term “free will” is contained right there in the definition of numerous legal concepts. Other criminal law concepts would lose their meaning as well, like “premeditation”. Is it realistic to speak of premeditation if freewill doesn’t exist? Is a robot on an assembly line in China premeditating the building of an iPhone? The mere fact that a robot takes several distinct steps to complete a task doesn’t render its actions ‘premeditated’. Such concepts should be purged from our criminal justice system if we’re all just biological robots.​

​

Should science convince the world that free will is an illusion–we must move past notions of “punishment” and “sentencing”. This is not just intellectual musings; concepts of free will impact the criminal courts on a daily basis....... The bottom line here is best expressed by Professor Shaun Nichols in his lectures entitled Free Will and Determinism: “if science convinces us that free will is an illusion, we seem to face a moral conclusion that is difficult to accept: that all criminals should be excused for their crimes.”​

​

Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System​

 

[Koldo]

Here is your statement: Now I am going to take a side, and make a contentious claim: It doesn't make sense to think that you could have made a different choice if everything was the same, because that would entail even what motivates your choice being the same.

The problem here, which you apparently don't see is that you've tied your own hand behind you back.
My argument is that if you assume you can't alter your motivations then you are stuck with the view of determinism.
Begging the question of determinism because your statement assumes the the conclusion of your view.

To which you said: You will always have some kind of "ultimate" motivation at any given moment that will reign supreme. Which is exactly why it is possible to say "why" you have chosen to do something in particular rather than something else.

Ultimately asking: If our will decides our choices and our will is forged by our past...
Again assuming facts which support your conclusion.

And, I pointed out how this is not the case in post #169 which you never addressed.
If you are not going to address the problems I brought up about your statement, I'll assume you don't have a counter argument.

So I suppose you are right there hasn't been a argument. Just assumptions you've made which you haven't supported.

Now if you want to support any of these statements, that's fine. If not, that's fine too.

Let me elaborate a proper argument then, since you want to debate:

P1: Motivation is causally sufficient and necessary to make a choice (along with other mental faculties).
P2: Intentionally changing your motivation requires one to make a choice, which in itself requires a motivation given P1.
P3: If intentionally changing a motivation X requires one to make a choice, either there must be a motivation Y to enable that choice or that choice is not possible.
C1: There is a motivation Y to enable that choice. (Or, that choice is not possible, meaning you can't choose your motivations, leading to determinism)
P4: If intentionally changing a motivation Y requires one to make a choice, either there must be a motivation Z to enable that choice or that choice is not possible.
C2: There is a motivation Z to enable that choice. (Or, that choice is not possible, meaning you can't choose your motivations, leading to determinism)
P5: If infinite regress is not possible, then there must be some point at which the causal chain of motivations must end and this point must be a motivation that was never chosen.
P6: Infinite regress is not possible.
C3: There must be some point at which the causal chain of motivations must end (The preceeding motivation in the causal chain) and this point must be a motivation that was never chosen .
P7: If the preceeding motivation in the causal chain was never chosen, then free will doesn't exist.
P8: The preceeding motivation in the causal chain was never chosen.
C4: Free will doesn't exist.

What do you disagree with and why?

 

[Koldo]

I have demonstrated that free will exists. You haven't.
Because I decide to have sex. It's my will because it's mine and only mine. And it's free because nobody forces me to have sex.

You have defined free will into existence. You might as have said that free will exists because you have a dog named free will.

You haven't disproved my claim. Yet. I am still waiting for you to disprove my claim about sex and free will.

There is nothing to disprove. You are using the wrong defintion.

 

[Left Coast]

The self is central to the idea of agency that isn't merely a function of natural laws and processes, so I think it's crucial to the question of free will.

This is a common theme of your reasoning. You think "natural laws and processes" = determinism. But that's precisely what needs to be proved here. What if agency is a natural law or process?

The "choices" would themselves be part of a causal chain, though, and that still doesn't resolve why or how we arrive at them to begin with. A crocodile would die if it ate poison, but it didn't make a "choice." It just took a specific action that was part of the causal chain in its life and ended up killing it.

As I explained previously, we change ourselves. So yes, choices do have causal power - but we still choose them.

The probability that a reckless driver will go on to become a serial killer is much lower than the probability that a murderer will become one.

Being a serial killer is not the only way to kill multiple people. Being a reckless driver can be part of a larger pattern of reckless behavior that can endanger others. But again, I'm betting you want the reckless driver to have a lesser punishment than the murderer, even if they only ever end up killing the same number of people in their lives. So again, something is afoot here beyond raw harm assessment. Intention is morally relevant.

I would actually argue that the success of rehabilitative prison systems of countries like Norway and Finland demonstrates that focusing on the concept of "moral accountability" per se has little benefit in a strictly legal and rehabilitative context. The central issue is how to address the causes and effects of the crimes, not which moral label to assign to them or which punishment to choose based on that assignment.

Rehabilitation can be effective, but you're still going to run into moral accountability there: part of the process of rehabilitation is convincing the criminal that they are morally accountable for their behavior and should therefore change it because they see their choices are harming others, which is wrong.

What makes us seek those interventions in the first place, and do we control whether or not they work for our specific situation?

Again, you'd have to make the case on determinism that 100% of our action is dictated by forces beyond our control, and that it has nothing to do with our choice to engage in the intervention.

I'm not saying we're slaves of our feelings; I'm saying that the things that can make us not become slaves to them are still not indicative of agency as you defined it here:

It sounds like you are saying we're slaves of our feelings, though. Perhaps one feeling takes over another, but eventually we just inexorably, uncontrollably do whatever our strongest whim tells us we must do. Slavery by any other name...

I practice meditation, mindfulness, and a few other techniques for emotional regulation. You can also see in other debate threads that I don't snap at other posters and violate the rules while debating them. Does that mean all of these things are an indication of agency? I don't believe so: their existence and my using them don't say anything about agency or lack thereof. Our biology and psychology are bound by natural laws, and sometimes understanding how some of these laws work can significantly help us to improve quality of life.

See above. "Natural laws" =/= determinism.

Is John separate from an expression of biological and natural processes? Is his self not a product of these things and therefore bound and shaped by them? What made John seek treatment, if not thoughts that occurred in his brain?

Same reply here as above.

Would he have sought help if he hadn't been aware it existed to begin with?

Agency doesn't require omniscience.

I think one of the reasons the idea of agency can be quite intuitive is that, as I said earlier, we don't have a frame of reference for higher intelligence or what a species with "more agency" would look like. If the hypothetical super-intelligent aliens I proposed earlier met us, perhaps they would regard us just as we regard crocodiles and believe that we had no agency either.

And their ignorant assessment of us would be just as flawed as the determinist's is.

 

[Left Coast]

To exist as an objective feature of the world (also called mind-independent) and to be related to what is right and wrong.

What's right and wrong are things we're morally responsible to do and/or not do.

That game ended quickly!

But the experience of choosing remains, you still perceive it as choosing regardless, because you are living in the present unaware of the complete causal chain. You are still picking between alternatives right now, even if it is inevitable that you would pick one in specific. This is why I find it proper to call it a 'choice'. But this is all quite redundant as long as we are not talking past each other.

But the ability to actually, not just hypothetically, take an alternative action is relevant. If that actual option is not open to me, then the "choice" you're talking about is an illusion. A delusion, even. We think we are choosing but we really aren't.

Coercion entails someone else is making one act contrary to one own's will. Or, in other words, there is a person being used as a tool by someone else. This grants a distinct moral consideration.

What difference, morally, does it make to the person doing the acting whether they are forced to take an action by someone or something? At the end of the day, they were still forced. They had no choice. This renders their behavior morally equivalent, it seems to me.

 

[Estro Felino]

You have defined free will into existence. You might as have said that free will exists because you have a dog named free will.

There are people who disgracefully, have never have sex in their entire life...and I am not speaking of nuns and priests. They die virgins.
So sex is not intrinsic within existence.

 

[Nakosis]

Let me elaborate a proper argument then, since you want to debate:

Ok lets go over your points.

P1: Motivation is causally sufficient and necessary to make a choice (along with other mental faculties).
P2: Intentionally changing your motivation requires one to make a choice, which in itself requires a motivation given P1.
P3: If intentionally changing a motivation X requires one to make a choice, either there must be a motivation Y to enable that choice or that choice is not possible.

Ok

C1: There is a motivation Y to enable that choice. (Or, that choice is not possible, meaning you can't choose your motivations, leading to determinism)

Ok, we are going with the first part of this statement not the second part.

P4: If intentionally changing a motivation Y requires one to make a choice, either there must be a motivation Z to enable that choice or that choice is not possible.

Ok

C2: There is a motivation Z to enable that choice. (Or, that choice is not possible, meaning you can't choose your motivations, leading to determinism)

Ok, going with the first part, not the second part.

P5: If infinite regress is not possible, then there must be some point at which the causal chain of motivations must end and this point must be a motivation that was never chosen.

Not chosen, created.

P6: Infinite regress is not possible.
C3: There must be some point at which the causal chain of motivations must end and this point must be a motivation that was never chosen (The preceeding motivation in the causal chain).\

Not chosen, created.

P7: If the preceeding motivation in the causal chain was never chosen, then free will doesn't exist.

No, because a motivation can be created. The mistake here is assuming that a motivation must be chosen from a selection of motivations which already exist. The other option is to create a motivation.

P8: The preceeding motivation in the causal chain was never chosen.
C4: Free will doesn't exist.

Again just because a motivation wasn't chosen doesn't mean this is the only option available to start the chain.

Ok, so you're going to ask how do you go about creating a motivation. The way you do this is by imagining a possible future or imaging and alternate past in which things were done differently. So now because of what you have imagined created for yourself a motivation which didn't exist before you imagined these different possibilities.

Finally you're going to assume there has to exist a prior motivation for however there does not. I simply do this because I can. I don't have to. I don't need to. There is no motivation to do it.

You might as well ask why the sun chooses to shine. The sun doesn't make a choice, there is no motivation for it. The sun just does what it is able to do. The human brain/mind imagines. It doesn't need motivation to do what is inherently able to do.

 

[Koldo]

What's right and wrong are things we're morally responsible to do and/or not do.

That game ended quickly!

As I have said before, it is all connected and thus you can bring up moral responsibility in any debate concerning ethics. What I was saying is that we can speak about the merits of moral realism, for example, without ever talking about moral responsibility.

But the ability to actually, not just hypothetically, take an alternative action is relevant. If that actual option is not open to me, then the "choice" you're talking about is an illusion. A delusion, even. We think we are choosing but we really aren't.

As I have said before, I consider this to be quite redundant. Whether you call it a choice is of little relevancy as long as we don't talk past each other.

What difference, morally, does it make to the person doing the acting whether they are forced to take an action by someone or something? At the end of the day, they were still forced. They had no choice. This renders their behavior morally equivalent, it seems to me.

In one case there is one will being supressed by another. In the other case, there is no one, nor thing, suppresing someone's will.

 

[Koldo]

There are people who disgracefully, have never have sex in their entire life...and I am not speaking of nuns and priests. They die virgins.
So sex is not intrinsic within existence.

Which is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Estro Felino]

Which is absolutely irrelevant.

It's relevant.
Sex is not something hidden that philosophy doesn't deal with.
Philosophy is not about private vices and public virtues.

We don't stop being humans in our bedrooms.

 

[Koldo]

Ok lets go over your points.


Ok

Ok, we are going with the first part of this statement not the second part.


Ok


Ok, going with the first part, not the second part.


Not chosen, created.


Not chosen, created.


No, because a motivation can be created. The mistake here is assuming that a motivation must be chosen from a selection of motivations which already exist. The other option is to create a motivation.



Again just because a motivation wasn't chosen doesn't mean this is the only option available to start the chain.

Ok, so you're going to ask how do you go about creating a motivation. The way you do this is by imagining a possible future or imaging and alternate past in which things were done differently. So now because of what you have imagined created for yourself a motivation which didn't exist before you imagined these different possibilities.

Finally you're going to assume there has to exist a prior motivation for however there does not. I simply do this because I can. I don't have to. I don't need to. There is no motivation to do it.

You might as well ask why the sun chooses to shine. The sun doesn't make a choice, there is no motivation for it. The sun just does what it is able to do. The human brain/mind imagines. It doesn't need motivation to do what is inherently able to do.

Either you are choosing to use your imagination to create a motivation or you are not.
Given what you have just said, I take it you mean that you are not choosing to use your imagination to create a motivation, you are just doing it, no actual choice involved. Is this correct?

If so, the lack of choice involved entails the absence of the volitional factor. Without the volitional factor, where is free will?
Excuse my silly example, but the analogy works just fine for what I am trying to convey: While humans are sleeping, we, sometimes, fart. We are not choosing to fart, we just do. It happens naturally. But we don't call those farts a moment of 'free will', because there was no volutionary aspect involved. Likewise, merely using your imagination randomly or for no reason in particular has nothing to do with free will. Do you get what I am saying?

 

[Koldo]

It's relevant.
Sex is not something hidden that philosophy doesn't deal with.
Philosophy is not about private vices and public virtues.

We don't stop being humans in our bedrooms.

Sure, but you are bringing up a point that is completely irrelevant to the debate we are having.
You might have as well have said your dog is called free will.